Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:142624}} {{table:142625}} {{table:142626}} ### Considerations {{table:142627}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:142628}} {{table:142629}} {{table:142630}} {{table:142631}}

Officer's Report

SITE

• The application site comprises of a bridge and embankment on a section of the disused railway line at Bishopscourt, which is located between Kirk Michael and Ballaugh.
• The existing bridge comprises of two stone abutments with wingwalls and a timber footbridge spanning the gap between the abutments.
• There are is substantial trees and hedgerow within and in the vicinity of the application site.
• The site is within an area not zoned for development and an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
• The dismantled railway is a public footpath and forms part of the Heritage Trail
• The application site is surrounded by agricultural fields.
• To the east of the application site is Bishopscourt, which is a registered building.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

• The proposal is for the removal of the existing bridge and excavation of embankment to form new level in association with relaying of water pipes and electricity cables.
• Each of the existing masonry abutments will be removed. The embankment will be excavated approximately 40m to the south of the existing bridge and 34m to the north
• The proposal is to lower the embankment/bridge level by 3.86m and then re-grade the embankments back up to the original level of railway line.

PLANNING STATUS AND RELEVANT POLICIES

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) (November 2004)

PLANNING HISTORY

• None

REPRESENTATIONS

• The Drainage Division of the Department of Transport do not object in principle to the application subject to a condition requiring the applicant to supply as built drawings to the Drainage division showing all level and pipe depths and position of electricity cables.
• The MEA have advised that applicant to contact them with regard to working practices around underground cables/overhead lines.
• SPMCE has made the following comment that this is another nail in the MNR coffin. The Society supports the view that someday there will be a move to restore our closed narrow-gauge railway lines and demolition such as this will make such a scheme even more difficult for its supporters. We therefore object.
• IoMWA advises the applicant to contact them to discuss the protection of the main water pipe before construction work commences.

ASSESSMENT

• In the assessment of this application there are three key issues which are arguably, affected adversely by the Applicant’s proposal:-

• (a) the attraction, interest, and convenience of the footpath;
• (b) the historic and architectural interest of the former railway line; and
• (c) the character and appearance of the countryside in this area of high landscape value.

• The applicant has broadly touched on the reasons for the demolition of the abutments and the excavation of the embankments.
• The applicant has indicated that the landowner of the fields on either side of the bridge has lobbied his MHK to get the bridge demolished as it impinges on his farming activity in that it prevents movement of his farm machinery from one side of the bridge to the other.
• The applicant has indicated that historically the bridge abutment have been undermined in an attempt to overcome the farm machinery transit problem.
• The applicant accepts that the disused railway line in its entirety is a significant part of local heritage. However, the applicant does not feel that this one minor structure was in any way unique and or that the disused track as a whole would lose value should it be removed.
• However, I do not agree with the applicant's/agents view. This part of the track still offers significant value to users of the footpath in that the track is at the same level as other parts of the track to the north and south of the application site. The removal of the original alignment would introduce an alien feature within the Heritage Trail which does not respect the historic and architectural interest of the former railway line. Furthermore it would detract from the attraction, interest and convenience of the footpath.
• The applicant has indicated that to retain the heritage aspects of the structure it is proposed to re-use the stonework out of the abutment walls as seats/mounting/dismounting posts either side of the trail at his point so that they are not lost. However, the application does not show any detail in respect of this suggestion.
• The applicant realises that the appearance and character at this location will change should this work proceed. However, they do not believe that it will significantly affect the overall landscape and following re-planting and re-growth of the trees and shrubs the change will be almost unnoticeable from the nearest highway.
• In respect of the visual impact of the locality, the embankment edge of the application site comprises of trees and hedgerow. This is an attractive footpath feature which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the countryside in this locality when viewed from the footpath and from the A3. The proposed re-grading works along with the removal of a substantial amount of trees and hedgerow would change the character and appearance of the countryside by significant degree. Even if any of the trees/hedgerow which are to be retained which have there root structure extend into the proposed work will be undermined in the long term and affect their long term viability within the landscape. Given the special protection afforded to the landscape I consider this feature should not be lost unless the development is fully justified.
• The applicant has submitted a structural report which concludes the bridge has failed already i.e. moved to an unacceptable degree and is beyond simple repair. Since there is nothing to prevent further movement, it is expected that the abutment will continue to move gradually until collapse occurs. Alternatively, collapse might be precipitated by impact e.g. from a passing farm vehicle, or by construction work e.g. laying water mains along the track or excavating a trial pit at the foot of the abutment. This structure is a continuing health and safety risk to anyone passing over or under it.
• Furthermore, the report recommends that the bridge be temporarily propped or demolished and that no construction work take place in the vicinity until the bridge is made safe or demolished.

• The report does suggest a number of options for the existing bridge which are:-
• (a) demolish
• (b) demolish and rebuild as existing i.e. in masonry
• (c) demolish and replace with new structure.

The report does not explore in any detail options (b) or (c).

• If planning permission is not forthcoming, the applicant will progress the installation of the new infrastructure through the use of a freestanding pipe bridge which could be either above ground and/or sub soil. The applicant has indicated that if and when in the future the bridge subsequently requires large scale structural improvements and/or demolition the costs of amending the pipe work will be considerably more than the cost of demolishing the structure and dealing with the problem now.
• Within all this in mind the applicant believes that the demolition option is the best option to pursue.
• Following a site visit with the Conservation Section’s retained Structural Engineer, the Structural Engineer has indicated to me verbally that essentially the structure can be repaired and that there is no need for it to be demolished.
• On consideration of all the facts in the case I am of the opinion that the justification put forward by the applicant does not outweigh the harm to the landscape I have identified.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend that application be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

Whilst the MEA represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

It is considered that all parties who made representations to the planning application comply with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 – Determination of Interested Party Status with exception to SPMCE.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 22.11.2006

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed works would by reason of its siting and design in this prominent location would result in the removal of vegetation and part of the railway embankment within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which will have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

Furthermore, the proposed works will introduce an alien feature within the Heritage Trail which does not respect the historic and architectural interest of the former railway line and it would detract from the attraction, interest and convenience of the footpath.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 1/12/05